I think it's time we started a letter writing campaign.

[Tim01]

And tried to get the pro-gun control stance removed from the democrats platform. Not that many democrats are actually in favor of gun control, and it is disastrous politically. Maybe they just need to hear from enough of us to understand that average democrats are NOT in favor of gun control.

I already know, as so many of do, that there is a huge number of people who vote against democrats ONLY because of the gun control issue.

If we got rid of the gun control issue the republicans would have a major problem.

[X_Digger]

1. k&r! n/t

[Glassunion]

2. Would you have a suggestion on what our letters should read?

Since you have already giventhought to it. How about a sample letter that we could send in to our reps?

[Tim01]

4. I'm so not the guy for that.

There is noting graceful or sophisticated about the way I write.

[Tim01]

5. And besides........

politicians know what form letters and they don't seem too impressed by them. I've gotten responses where they made sure to point out multiple times that they had received my "form letter".

[FreakinDJ]

3. Gun Control has been a disaster for the DEMs

Althou - as an avid hunter I'm afraid I can't even get behind some of the new guns they are selling.

Just exactly what use is there for a .50 cal, or an AR-45 complete with silencer

[Glassunion]

6. Well...

The .50 cal is great for 1000 yard competition.

The AR with the silencer is great for hunting without disturbing the entire forest with the report from a firearm. I know several hunters who use silencers.

[SteveM]

11. In some European countries, silencers are required for hunting big game.

There is a fear in this country that game wardens would not be able to hear the report of poachers; but poachers already use a .22 (which is not very loud even without a silencer). I think a silencer is a good thing, especially on a .270 when deer hunting (my ears sound like a T.V. "ring" after it goes off the air, only my "T.V." is 24-7!). Alas, Texas doesn't allow them.

The debate over caliber is fatuous, fear-based and full of contradictions; I mean, just how many airplanes have been shot from skies, petroleum tank farms set ablaze, 2-mile assassinations pulled-off, and armor plates pierced? That's to say nothing of .54 caliber muzzle-loaders whose biggest danger is asphyxiation and vast particulate matter.

[X_Digger]

7. Only 1 in 5 gun owners hunt

Most gun owners use their guns for target shooting or self-protection. A .50 would be a great target rifle for extra long target shooting- I'm not that good a shot, but I can understand the zen-like self-discipline required to make those kinds of shots.

An AR-45 would make a great home defense gun, with jacketed hollow points. A supressor would keep you from going deaf if you had to use it inside a home for defense.

[Glassunion]

8. Not a hunter myself

My enjoyment is mostly target shooting. But I do have many friends who do, I just do not enjoy the activity.

Currently working on getting into long range competition.

[DonP]

9. Think a little broader

I'm not a hunter and most gun owners aren't. But splitting off the hunters from the other gun owners has been a Brady/Sugarmann gun control tactic for years. I think the ratio is about 1 hunter for every 5 gun owners.

The old Ben Franklin adage fits here, "Gentlemen, we must all hang together or surely King George will see that we all hang separately".

And the guns you're describing aren't really all that "new".

A .50 is basically a "rich guys toy" for the folks out West where they have 1000+ yard ranges and for guys that can afford $5+ per round. Kind of like owning a Ferrari when the speed limit is 55.

Since the '60's they have been used for long distance target matches. At 40+ pounds and over 5 feet long they are not exactly the first choice of gang members or the guy looking to knock over the AM PM Mini Mart. About 20 years ago the military started using them for sniper work. I guess technically you could use one for Grizzly. But FWIW there hasn't been a single crime committed with one the last time I looked.

I'm not sure what an AR45 is, but I'll assume you mean an AR-15 or AR-10? The AR series has also been around for over 50 years now and it's become pretty much the standard rifle for high power competitions at Camp Perry and are growing in popularity with hunters using the 6.8 and other uppers for them. Their modular design makes it easy to use the same lower for several calibers, from cheap .22 for plinking to 6.8 for serious game hunting..

As for a "silencers" or suppressors, they have been and remain tightly controlled since the NFA of 1934.

[X_Digger]

14. AR-45 = AR-15 in 45ACP .. unless the OP typo'd ;) n/t

[FreakinDJ]

18. Well I am a Hunter - and the BIGGEST Deterent to Hunting

Are the Drug Crazed Dope Growers armed with .50 cal and AR-45 (AR-15 Fully Auto, 45cal conversions) Neither of which I wish to come up against while hunting game

I use almost exclusively a Remington .243 Bolt action

Most folk would call it a "Varmint Weapon" but I prefer it over my .270 for hunting Deer. I also sold my 30-30 Winchester and picked up a 7.62 Argentina for Pig hunting. Cuts the brush better and applies better blunt force or shock power as you may call it.

Things have gotten a little better in some parts of the State since "Medical Marijuana" and licensed cultivation came into existence, but still there are Way Too Many Crazies out in the woods with a pot garden

[gorfle]

22. Do you have a citation for that?

Are the Drug Crazed Dope Growers armed with .50 cal and AR-45 (AR-15 Fully Auto, 45cal conversions) Neither of which I wish to come up against while hunting game

Do you have any news or research articles concerning marijuana growers armed with .50 caliber weapons and fully-automatic rifles? I assume by ".50 cal" you are referring to rifles that fire the .50 BMG and not the Desert Eagle pistol that fires a different round.

[FreakinDJ]

23. No - just a couple of DEAD FRIENDS

Try going onto the Hoopa Indian Reservation on confiscating their pot gardens

Try taking a walk in the woods around Strawberry California in October

[gorfle]

34. That's too bad.

Do you have a link to the news article about your friends' deaths that describes the weapons used?

[jeepnstein]

55. I'm quite interested as well.

Shot by a doper with a .50 caliber? That is very relevant to my interests.

[benEzra]

44. Drug dealers using restricted automatic weapons

is an entirely separate issue from U.S. civilians lawfully owning and shooting civilian non-automatics. The cartels have free access to hardware the USA provides to the Mexican military; U.S. civilians don't.

[Tim01]

26. This is a tough one.

Just like there shouldn't be black neighborhoods that are no-go zones for whites and police, but there are. Other side of the coin for some areas of Kentucky and Alabama.
Gangs shouldn't be able to take over large chunks of city real estate but they do.

Pot growers shouldn't be able to take over chunks of woodland but they do.

How would you feel if the badguys were trying to keep out of the woods using a 300 win mag with a good scope? Or a 12gauge in the brush?

[FreakinDJ]

31. That would at least give me "Fair Odds" of surviving

A friend's son was pinned down in some heavy brush by a pot farmer with a "Fully Auto Mac 10"

Helped rescue a couple of guys that were being chased out of a ravine by automatic weapons fire. They were hiking out with a buck they had killed and dressed and came too close to a garden. They had to drop the game and make a run for it

But I use a .243 with a 6x scope I can place a 5 shot group in a Nickel with @ 100 yds.

[Tim01]

37. And so if the pot farmers had been using a .243 the hunters would be dead.

I do understand that being able to put more bullets down range has some big advantages in some situations. But the real problem is that there are people willing to kill other people.

If you had been the one doing the shooting with your .243 somebody would have a bullet in them.

The fact that the sound of automatic weapons scares the shit out of most people, does not change the fact that you are much more deadly with your .243. But you are not shooting at people.


If they are using automatic weapons they really are probably buying them from overseas. Just today I was reading about gangs buying automatic weapons by the case from overseas. You would probably agree that me registering my AR doesn't effect drug dealers buying weapons from China.

[benEzra]

42. Well, considering that those things are ILLEGAL and no one is seriously trying to change that...

I don't think I understand your point re: the NRA, as the NRA supports those restrictions and always has.

[Callisto32]

48. Obvious solution: End the Drug War

Just sayin'.

[Taitertots]

56. So you will have no problem coming up with a link to a person killed by pot growers with a .50 BMG

You should be more concerned about falling out of your tree stand.

[taurus145]

57. My .50 "only" weighs 27 lbs - empty

And it's great for long range shooting - target or game.

I still prefer my .460 WBY for mooses and meeces.

[Tim01]

10. Use? Same as art. nt

[Tim01]

12. Why do you like to kill animals anyway?

I'm just pulling your leg.

But you can probably see where I am going. I am a big hunter. The meat I get from hunting is way more expensive than what I could buy in the store in all honesty.
Hunting for meat is not economically viable for hardly anybody at all. So, do you need to hunt? No. So you don't need a hunting gun anymore than a gun enthusiast needs an AR with a sound suppressor.

The .50BMG is needed just as much as any car that can exceed the speed limit.

[FreakinDJ]

20. I'm not saying your arguments are not sound - Responcible Gun Ownership

but the application is where they get messed up

The Biggest Deterrent to Hunting in Northern California are Drug Crazed Pot Farmers armed to the hilt with these exact type of weapons.

What is wrong with some sort of "Registration" to these "Special Application Weapons". I mean if your not doing any thing wrong you have nothing to fear Right?

[Tim01]

24. The AWB has already showed us we DO have something to fear.

Any argument that starts with something like " they wouldn't do that", has been proved wrong. They did it. They'll do it again. And in 50 years or 100 years or 200 years we might regret not having tools that we need. The founding fathers understood all of this.

They did ban guns, and they based it on how the guns looked for gods sake. Not only did they pass a gun ban law, it was an incredibly stupid gun ban law that they actually did pass.

[MisterBill45]

27. Please look at your post again carefully

"I mean if your not doing any thing wrong you have nothing to fear Right?"

This is an argument that can be used against ANY civil right. Why have a 4th amendment? I mean, hey if the cops search your car or your home with no reason or probable cause at all, you have nothing to fear unless you're doing something wrong right?

The number of shootings in California prior to the AWB that involved so-called "assault weapons" was less than .75% of all shootings in the state. I would be very surprised if that number has risen.

You don't institute a restriction on a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution for a crime that barely ever happens. Nor do you allow government free reign over citizens with the canard: Hey, as long as you're not doing anything wrong, what's the problem?

Our system is based on the principle that you are presumed to be doing nothing wrong until proven otherwise. Your logic would say that we are assumed guilty until proven innocent.
That's a recipe for a police state, not a democratic republic.

[FreakinDJ]

30. So the "Right to Bare Arms" should include Bazookas and Grenades

Toss in a fully armed Sherman Tank, and few Claymores

Obviously you see where I'm going with this

If folks wanted a .50 cal for honest long range target shooting as you and others have suggested then why wouldn't they want better designed Ammunition for it. Currently the round being used is the same as the Military .50 cal machine gun round which isn't really designed for the accuracy you are claiming it can achieve. Fully automatic weapons have a "Head Spacing" of .010". Competition Target Rifles use a head spacing of .001 - .002" to achieve accuracy

But it does allow the owners of .50 cal rifles to use Military Ordinance such as "Armor Piercing", "Phosphorous Tracer Rounds", "Exploding", and my personal favorite "Armor Piercing Exploding Rounds"

You want to claim that as a RIGHT or any thing near "Responsible Gun Ownership"

[MisterBill45]

35. That's a slippery slope fallacy

Explosives can be shown to present enormous dangers. I'm not, and most gun-rights advocates I've met don't, advocate having grenades or 40mm grenades available at the local gun shop.
They are already virtually unobtainable.

Sherman tank? You can get one right now if you can aford it. But g/l with getting ammo for the main gun.

Armor piercing explosive rounds are already restricted and I don't know anyone who's seriously advocating for unrestricted status on those rounds.

Once again, you've avoided answering my charge, which is that you can't prove a substantial threat to the public from a semi-auto carbine that shoots .45 ACP rounds. Mor can you demonstrate genuine harm from a semi-auto Barrett .50.

Anything you can do with the Barrett, other than extreme long-range shooting, I can do with a bolt-action Lee-Enfield sitting in my safe. Anything you can do with a semi-auto carbine I can do with a semi-auto Garand or M1-carbine, only my Garand will shoot more accurately and longer range and do more damage when it hits something.

You don't restrict rights based on irrational fear of guns that have never been used in any significant number of crimes. You have yet to prove me wrong on this. You're just throwing out bazookas and claymore mines (things which are unobtainable as it is and no one is arguing for) as a distraction so you don't have to address the actual issue at hand.

It's a dishonest snarky tactic to avoid the issue. I'm not buying it.

And while we're on the topic of "rights," How about we institute "reasonable restrictions" on free speech and voting?

No one should be able to vote or write a post on a forum or write a letter to the editor without taking a government approved class and passing it, getting a $100 permit from the state and of course, anyone who's ever been convicted of a DUI, and drug charge, ever been the subject of a restraining order(with or without a conviction) anyone under the age of 21, anyone who's ever been admitted to a mental hospital should be denied these rights.

GWB started a war on false premises that has to date killed hundreds of thousands of people, virtually all of them innocent civilians in a period of 8 years. There, I just demonstrated more harm from an unrestricted right to vote than you could possibly dream of demonstrating from a general right to own a semi-auto or even full auto weapon.

When you go get your voting and free speech permits, subject to denial for any reason your chief of police wants to use, *statutory or not*, I'll stop bitching about gun control. and yes, every one of the restrictions I mentioned (and there are a lot more) are required before you can own so much as a single-shot break-action pistol in many states.

[inkool]

36. You can get Tanks and Bazookas...

by the same process one would use to get a fully automatic firearm or a .50 cal rifle. Please look up the national firearms act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 for details.

There are companies that make precision .50 cal ammunition. Hornady is one that I know of. A person could also load there own ammunition for accuracy.

I don't think many/any competition shooters are using fully automatic rifles. The few that I know use semi automatic precision built AR-15s.

[FreakinDJ]

39. The Mil Spec .50 cal casing is not made to load accurately

it is made to load QUICKLY

If you truly wanted an accurate .50 cal round it would have to be redesigned - but then you would not be able to use Mil Spec armor piercing exploding ammunition

[Callisto32]

49. Fireform it to your own chamber, reload.

Rinse, repeat. Even if you are right in commercially manufactured ammo, you are leaving out that a great deal of people modify and manufacture their own ammo to spec for an individual rifle.

[FreakinDJ]

54. My point EXACTLY

IF - and I say that AS A BIG IF

Folks actually had a MORE Legitimate need for a .50 cal rifle use as competition target shooting then the manufactures would have designed and manufactured the .50 cal to fire a more accurate round.

The manufactures purposely left the chamber design intact as to allow it to accommodate Mil Spec Ammo.

I don't think that is right

The first time it is used with Mil Spec Ammo in the commission of some Horrific Crime (sniper shooting of an Elected Official) there will be a HUGE public outcry for TOUGHER Gun Owership Laws. And WHY - so some cretin can have the option of shooting Mil Spec Ammo, even when he says the weapon is for competition target shooting

That is what I mean by "Responsible Gun Ownership"

[oneshooter]

38. If you want the truth

Most of the 50BMG target chambers are tight enough that they will not chamber GI ammo. The vast majority of the 1000yd+ shooters use "ugly guns" with 4x4 "stocks" and weigh 60-100lbs each, are bolt action single shot and are fed a diet of highly accurate hand loads. The cost for these rifles runs from $6000 to whatever you can afford.

As for owning a tank, armored car, or halftrack, all it takes is money. Base cost for a rebuildable Sherman(35 tons) is around $45000. Don't want to do the work yourself? Fully restored Shermsns go for $120-180,000 each. This is for a fully functional,UNARMED 35 ton Sherman tank. Pay the money, change the title to your name, and BINGO you own a tank!!!

One of my clients owns a fully fucional and FULLY ARMED Stuart tank (20tons) It has a live 37mm cannon and a live full auto 30 cal M1919a1. He has the permits for both and loads his own ammo, solid shot only, for the 37mm. To get HE rounds foe it requires an additional permit, the ammo is $250 per round, plus a $200 tax PER ROUND. Also a full accounting of the disposition of the rounds in a "bound book". The Stuart is a blast to drive, capable of 35mph, and is powered by an air cooled 250hp Continental radial engine.

So to own a tank or a fifty cal, even full auto, requires the application of sufficient funds, a really anal background check, and time.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[FreakinDJ]

40. Just as you can get permits to manufacture Silencers

but Do You Want Kids to play with them is my point

NO and the MAJORITY of Americans don't want the AVERAGE person to have access to these armaments as well and that is why they are, and have been regulated heavily for almost 60 years.

I think pushing the envelope of what is legally obtainable for the average citizen with items like the .50cal with Mil Spec Ammo or AR-45 with Silencer is irresponsible endangers gun ownership for ALL Americans.

But that's just my opinion

[SteveM]

47. So, now you bring up "do you want kids to play with them...?"

I don't want kids to play with a simple .22 revolver. Or BB gun. You say that "...is my point." Well, there is no argument, here!

The problem with this "issue" is that there is LITTLE OR NO EVIDENCE provided which shows there is a societal ill or problem; yet, you proffer regulation, registration, laws to address this NON-EVIDENT problem.

Responsible adults properly train their kids in firearms, or lock them up so they cannot gain access to them. It matters little if the weapon is a .37 mm. cannon or an Iver-Johnson .32.

[benEzra]

43. Bazookas and grenades are restricted, as is API .50 BMG ammo ("Raufoss" rounds).

Target shooters do generally use handloads, not milsurp.

Given that no one in the United States has been murdered with a civilian .50 BMG In the last 30 years, I still don't see your point.

When the National Firearms Act was written, .50 was chosen as the upper limit of civilian small arms. The only reason this is even an issue at all is the US. gun control lobby wants to shatter that 75-year-old compromise and redraw the limits to include the .300 magnums, .338's, and .408's.

[SteveM]

46. "Bazookas and grenades, tanks" and such are not protected...

by 2A. The Amendment refers to "arms" which in those days AND in ours, means firearms which are designed to be used from one or both arms. That doesn't include "rocket" powered and crew-manned weapons like bazookas, or bombs which are cast, or tanks, planes, etc. You CAN own these things, but you are subject to regulation, and will have a difficult time acquiring the "warheads" and ammunition for such.

The only time I have seen .50 BMG guns in use are when a civilian obtained an entire ball turret from a B-17, and fires this at junk cars. He is HIGHLY regulated. The other, folks using .50 BMG bolt-actions for target or long-range hunting (quite rare).

As yet, I have seen no record of irresponsible use with these guns. But, supply me with a link. Thanks.

[SteveM]

45. I am confused by your suggestion...

"What is wrong with some sort of 'Registration' to these 'Special Application Weapons'."

If, as you say, these "drug-crazed pot farmers" are using FULL-AUTO weapons, then they either already have them registered, or they are in violation of several serious laws. Don't you think the Feds and locals would investigate anyone and any area where FULL-AUTO WEAPONS were being used? Are you advocating an ADDITIONAL registration? What would be the purpose of this viz a viz already lawful (and registered) full-auto owners?

[benEzra]

13. Sound suppressors are as tightly controlled as howitzers, tanks, and bombs.

You can't just go down to your local gun store and buy one; you have to apply to the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for written permission. IF they do grant you written authorization (BATFE Form 4), which your local chief law enforcement officer must sign off on, you can purchase one from a specially licensed Class III dealer, you can't take it out of state without notifying the BATFE, and the BATFE gets to inspect your paperwork once a year if they so choose.

It's no different than if you wanted to buy a suppressed .45 in 1935; this is hardly new, as the relevant Federal restrictions were passed in 1934, and sound suppressors go back to the 1800's.

An AR-45 without a sound suppressor, and with a civilian-legal 16" barrel, is just a .45 ACP derivative of the AR-15, the most popular civilian centerfire rifle in the United States. It works just like a Marlin Camp Carbine; it's not an automatic weapon or anything (at least civilian-legal versions aren't).

[FreakinDJ]

32. Again - what is the purpose

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbxv-FtkS_E

[X_Digger]

33. Home deffense, target shooting..

.. being nice to the neighbors by reducing noise pollution.

[benEzra]

41. Of a European-style NFA Title 2 restricted sound suppressor, or of an unsuppressed AR-45?

A sound suppressor lets you shoot without hearing protection without destroying your hearing. It's still rather loud, but not cochlea-wrecking loud.

The purpose of an AR-45 is to give you the ballistics of a .45 ACP carbine with the superior ergonomics of the AR platform. A .45 isn't really powerful enough for hunting, but waaaay more gun owners punch paper than hunt.

Or were you talking about AR-15s, the most popular centerfire target rifle and defensive carbine in the USA?

[Callisto32]

50. The same purpose as a muffler on a car.

It makes it quieter, which makes it more pleasant to use. I don't like loud noises; neither do my neighbors.

[PavePusher]

52. What is your point?

You've dropped all the copy'n'past Brady Cartoon buzz phrases, but you've provided no supporting evidence or cites for the claims you made upthread about "automatic weapons".

I'm begining to think you live under a bridge....

[gorfle]

21. On .50 cals and silencers.

Most people who shoot .50 BMG are long-range, high-power target shooters. The rifles in this caliber tend to start at around $5000. Ammunition tends to cost about $2 per cartridge. I agree with you that it's an expensive, esoteric shooting hobby but since it doesn't harm anyone and these weapons are almost never used in crime there's no concern about it.

Likewise with silencers. Unlike in the movies, silencers to not turn .223 rifles into a quiet "phutt" sound. The most practical application for silencers is at shooting ranges and while hunting. They simply make the shooting experience more enjoyable for the shooter and the people around them.

[MisterBill45]

29. Answer to your question

I can ask you: why do you "need" a bolt action rifle? You can hunt with a bow or a black-powder muzzle-loader.

Why do you need to hunt? It's potentially dangerous.

Why do you need a car that can go over the speed limit?

No one should have to prove to the state that they "need" a thing in order to have it. That's not a free society, it's a police state.

The state must prove enormous harm to the society before it restricts. That's the way it should be.

Since large-bore weapons like the Barrett .50 and a carbine version of the AR-15 that shoots pistol rounds (ar-45) are virtually never used in crime, why would you want to ban them? Why should we tell people what they can and cannot possess based solely on scary looks or personal taste?

You need to prove enormous harm before you can even begin to talk about restricting a constitutional RIGHT.

Gun violence is almost always done with a pistol. According the a DOJ report in 2004, they were unable to see any violence reduction results from the AWB. Nor was there any result as far as they could tell from bans on hi-cap magazines. It appeared that magazine capacity had no relation to the number of rounds fired in actual crimes.

From the report:

"Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading."

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_exec2004.pdf

You could make an argument that you would reduce gun violence with a total ban on all privately held firearms. Banning certain flavors because they look or sound frightening is just irrational fear speaking. It doesn't address the issue in a meaningful way.

[PavePusher]

51. Silencers are a safety device.

Why do people continually rail against them, and why should we have to pay $400-$800 and an unConstitutional $200 "tax" for a safety device that can be manufactured for $50?


P.S. You do know that a sound suppressor (they don't "silence" a firearm in any way, shape or form) increases the length of a handgun 2-300%, and adds 8-20inches to the length of a rifle, right?

[dmallind]

15. Ermm... where is it?

The platform I can see supports RKBA for self-defense.

[X_Digger]

16. Here ya go..

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html , page 48

Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

[dmallind]

25. And other than the misleading name what's wrong with that?

Had they said "extend NICS access to private sellers for a nominal fee so we can keep guns out of criminal hands" would it be OK?

[X_Digger]

28. Personally, I think NICS should be available to private citizens but not required.

Even if it were required of private transfers, it'd have to be in a system that doesn't require one to go to an FFL or police station.

And leave tihart alone- all records of a background check destroyed within 24 hours of a 'pass'- no de facto registration, thankyaverramuch (which is really what many proposing closing the so called 'gun show loophole' are really wanting.)

[PavePusher]

53. Why should we be pushing a ban on semi-auto civilian firearms?

Where is the "Needs" test for Constitutional oversight?

[SteveM]

17. I think Tim01 is on to something here...

but I'm not sure how to effect this "campaign." Some considerations:

(1) Should a letter be physically presented to the brick & mortar site of the DNC, much as a redress of grievances?

(2) Should this presentation be widely-publicized in advance?

(3) Should we send letters to ALL Democratic organizations, calling on them to support the "cause," and when?

(4) Should we enlist notable Democratic elected officials to join in?

(5) How do we deal with the more anti-2A MSM outlets in effecting a campaign?

(6) What kind of follow-up activism should be anticipated, especially at local conventions?


My suggestion for demands of pro-2A Democrats:

(a) Remove the existing Second Amendment language in the Party Platform.

(b) Replace the language with: "The Democratic Party fully supports the Right to Keep and Bear Arms." Clean and simple.

[MisterBill45]

19. Good luck with that. My Dem rep won't even respond to me on the issue

Seriously. I have written, emailed and called the DC office trying to get an appointment with my Democratic representative (Niki Tsongas) for over a year and I can't even get her legislative assistant to return a phone call.

I've given up. I just keep posting on regional forums here trying to get someone to run for congress against her in the next primary.

This is why Dems lose elections. They WILL NOT LISTEN.

The existing planks of the party talking about renewing the AWB, repealing Tiahart and stripping citizens of the right to sell their own private property ("loophole") are spectacularly unpopular among gun owners in general. Anyone who lives in a very restricted state knows that EVERY SINGLE TIME "reasonable" gun-control measures are adopted, they are used as a club to institute a defacto gun ban. It happens EVERY TIME.

"Reasonable gun-control" is the same as a poll tax or literacy tests. they are used to strip us of our rights.

I live in Mass. Yes, that's right, the Bluer than BLUE state that just elected a Republican to the senate.

Wanna know something? Most gun owners here are Democrats to the bone. THEY ALL VOTED FOR SCOTT BROWN BECAUSE COAKLEY IS LEGENDARY IN HER CONTEMPT FOR GUN OWNERS. (and voters in general really).

This is the same woman who told Mass. residents that she supported the prosecution of a man who punched out a child molester he caught groping his 6-y/o in a public restroom. she said: "We discourage self-help." She's manipulated the already arcane gun-laws to ban hundreds of modern handguns that have met every possible safety test. She's harassed, (in violation of the constitution and existing US Supreme Court precedent) out of state vendors of ammunition and components and intimidated them into stopping shipments to Mass.

She was instrumental in criminalizing the possession of spent brass. Yes, that's right, a piece of brass that used to be part of a cartridge. It's a crime to posses a piece of brass here without the permission of the state and a very expensive process of training requirements and license fees, not to mention a background check. for a piece of metal that is utterly harmless.

I've decided that any democrat who voices support of ANY additional gun laws will never get my vote. And that includes the president if he spouts off any more support for the AWB. I'll write in myself or vote a third party.

It's time the Democratic party stopped trying to strip us of our fundamental human rights and basically taking our votes for granted with the platform:

"I know we're control freaks who have no respect for individual rights or the rule of law (Tell me again how no one is under prosecution for torture)? but hey, at least we're not Republicans."

That's no kind of platform any sensible person would vote for. They need to get their act together and go back to representing the people, not the statist impulses of the elites who hold most of us voters in contempt or catering to the irrational fears of urbanites in violation of the constitution. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?